We performed a comparison between Bitbucket Server and GitHub based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Version Control solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Our code is secure."
"Bitbucket Server easily integrates with Jira because they are both Atlassian products."
"Bitbucket Server is easy to use. You can use other applications to access it, or you can use it to access the internet. You can use solutions, such as Sourcetree, which is free, and put it on your development system and use it to do the check-in, checkouts, and those type of operations. It is nice, but some other developers may agree."
"The product’s most valuable features are private repositories and the ability to work as a proxy for implementing CI/CD pipelines."
"It is an amazingly stable solution."
"Its standout features are the seamless integration with various intelligent tools and its user-friendly nature."
"In terms of benefits, I feel that many companies are moving to Bitbucket Server since it can be deployed on an on-premises model at a time when everything is being moved to the cloud."
"The initial setup is straightforward. It takes half an hour to deploy."
"GitHub is pure or open-source; you can access it anywhere. You can have a lot of collateral information. You can make the changes and do the reviews from one place."
"There are no issues. It's simple, easy, and fully compatible from my perspective with Git."
"This solution is very easy to use which I like about it. The capacity to own artifacts and share them with others is another good feature. You don't have to write all your code from scratch, you can use available templates and alter the code according to your needs."
"GitHub allows us the option to push files from a non-UA method or directly upload files from the UA. You can integrate GitHub with Jenkins to do CI/CD."
"GitHub provides good time reduction and this is what I value the most."
"We can make a private repository."
"The most valuable features of GitHub are the ease of integration into Microsoft Azure DevOps. The process that you need to deploy into Microsoft Azure becomes fairly simple and the templates are already available, a lot of the engineers find it easier to use."
"GitHub's version control is valuable."
"The product interface consists of multiple features that are complicated to navigate for new users."
"Instead of providing only raw features and plugins, Atlassian should provide a ready-to-use integration of both choices to incorporate "trunk-based" development."
"At the moment, there are not many details on how to proceed with the troubleshooting if one of the users faces an issue with the product."
"The user experience is tedious and long-winded. It could also be smoother from an admin's perspective."
"The tasks on Bitbucket must be automatically integrated into Jira."
"Bitbucket Server can experience performance issues when pushing a large amount of code. This process may take a considerable amount of time."
"Enhancing the real-time reflection of changes online is an area that could benefit from improvement."
"The solution's user interface could be improved because it's not very user-friendly or intuitive."
"The initial setup requires heavy documentation which can be challenging for new developers."
"This solution could be improved if migration was fully automated to make it easy, for example, to migrate repositories into GitHub."
"I would like to see more security where a plugin was available for us to update in relation to security."
"It would be useful to have tutorial videos within the GitHub dashboard."
"If it had all of the end-to-end integration, then we probably wouldn't have any doubts about what we have installed. However, at this point, we're still trying to figure out how to use it end-to-end."
"The GUI design is poor, so I exclusively use the CLI, which is much easier to use and understand. It would be great to see the GUI updated to be more user-friendly."
"I cannot recall coming across any shortcomings of the product."
"If something has to be moved into approvals, and if they don't approve it in a few hours, then they should move the approval request to some other user, or they should have a way to escalate it."
Bitbucket Server is ranked 2nd in Version Control with 21 reviews while GitHub is ranked 3rd in Version Control with 74 reviews. Bitbucket Server is rated 8.2, while GitHub is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Bitbucket Server writes "An easy to use solution that works as a code repository for developers and helps them merge changes ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of GitHub writes "Beneficial version control and continuous integration, but guides would be helpful". Bitbucket Server is most compared with Bitbucket, Atlassian SourceTree and AWS CodeCommit, whereas GitHub is most compared with Snyk, AWS CodeCommit, Bitbucket, Fortify on Demand and Veracode. See our Bitbucket Server vs. GitHub report.
See our list of best Version Control vendors.
We monitor all Version Control reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
